On Aug 21, 2012, at 4:59 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>
> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then
On 21.08.2012 17:29, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
>>> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a re
sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the subject
On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
> has concluded.
>
> The ballot passed.
>
> VOTE TALLY
>
> +1:
>
> IPMC members:
>
> +1 Marvin Humphrey
> +1
The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
has concluded.
The ballot passed.
VOTE TALLY
+1:
IPMC members:
+1 Marvin Humphrey
+1 Dave Fisher
+1 Jim Jagielski
For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-de
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
>> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>>>
>>> This is an unreasonable request
On Aug 21, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
>> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
>
> When the option to be "fair" ex
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>>
>> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
>> The notice file ha
On 8/21/12 5:10 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 8/21/12 8:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>>> * I could not find a version control tag for 3.4.1-rc2, but I was
>>> able to obtain the AOO34 branch at the specified revision 1372282; it
>
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
>> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
>
> When the option to be "fair"
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/21/12 8:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>> * I could not find a version control tag for 3.4.1-rc2, but I was
>> able to obtain the AOO34 branch at the specified revision 1372282; it was
>> close, though seemingly not exact. The
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
When the option to be "fair" exists, "fair" is great!
With regards to my own vote, I'm going t
On 21 August 2012 14:38, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
>>> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warr
On 21/08/12 15:24, Rob Weir wrote:
[...]
> A suggested exercise at ApacheCon. Get a group of 20 Members, break
> them into groups of 5. Give each group an identical list of 3rd party
> dependencies and ask them to create a NOTICE file that expresses them.
> Give them 30 minutes. Compare the res
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
>>> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
>> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>>>
>>> This is an unreasonable request. T
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>>
>> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
>> The notice file ha
On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>
> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
> ju
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
justify this new requirement?
It is not fair to the
On 8/21/12 12:52 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 18 August 2012 13:24, Andre Fischer wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
>> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator release for
>> Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release with a
On 18 August 2012 13:24, Andre Fischer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator release for
> Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release with already more than 11 million
> downloads.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/21/12 8:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>>> In my mind as an IPMC member and Apache Member, this is a source release
>>> VOTE with convenience binary artifacts.
>>
>> Thank you, D
On 8/21/12 8:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>> In my mind as an IPMC member and Apache Member, this is a source release
>> VOTE with convenience binary artifacts.
>
> Thank you, Dave. I consider your statement to override the assertion on
>
On Aug 20, 2012 5:06 PM, "Dave Fisher" wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>...
> > -1
> >
> > I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this
> > release:
...
> I am not surprised at your response, but it is hard and unproductive to
argue with Rob
Rob: I believe it is rather foolish to argue that Roy is incorrect.
For starters, he wrote the Bylaws, and is well-versed in the intent of this
Foundation. Second, the Foundation policies take precedence over
third-party concepts, so whether you/OSI may define a binary as open source
is wholly imm
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> In my mind as an IPMC member and Apache Member, this is a source release
> VOTE with convenience binary artifacts.
Thank you, Dave. I consider your statement to override the assertion on
ooo-dev that binaries are part of the official release
Top-Post - you question is answered below.
In my mind as an IPMC member and Apache Member, this is a source release VOTE
with convenience binary artifacts.
Edge case and RAT check discussion at the bottom, if that balances your vote in
either direction.
Please advise about whether you think th
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Andre Fischer wrote:
>
>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> -1
>
> I object to the cla
On Aug 20, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Andre Fischer wrote:
>
>>[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
>>[ ] 0 Don't care
>>[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> -1
>
> I object to the claim
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Andre Fischer wrote:
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
-1
I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this
release:
ht
On 18.08.2012 17:53, Richard S. Hall wrote:
On 8/18/12 08:24 , Andre Fischer wrote:
Hi all,
this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator
release for Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release with already m
On 8/18/12 08:24 , Andre Fischer wrote:
Hi all,
this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator
release for Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release with already more
than 11 million downloads.
This rele
On Aug 18, 2012, at 8:24 AM, Andre Fischer wrote:
>
>
> The vote will be open for 3 days.
>
>[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
>[ ] 0 Don't care
>[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
+1 (binding)
Hi all,
this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator release
for Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release with already more than 11
million downloads.
This release candidate provides the following impor
33 matches
Mail list logo
